Tennessean writing about AR-15, similar rifles

[Guest brianhaas]

A question....

I keep hearing about the decrease in crime in 1995 after the first AWB. What were the crime stats in 2005 after it lapsed??? A study should look at all that information (plus a lot more)....

Crime since 1995 has been on a pretty steady and gradual decline. I haven't seen any evidence the ban had any effect in either direction on that. The decline actually slowed significantly after the ban lapsed, but I suspect that's because we had already reached such low crime rates that there wasn't much more downward movement that we were going to see.

[mikegideon]

My mistake.

Figured we were trying to fix a problem, not just looking to print a news story.

Never Mind.......

 

Legislators don't fix problems. Where you been, DMark? :)

[JPR1959]

 

I haven't figured out everyone I'm going to speak to yet, I'm still researching. But I'll likely reach out to Mayors Against Illegal Guns or someone like the Violence Policy Center. Perhaps local politicians, if I can find some who are vocal about the issue (either for or against).
 
I'll also be speaking to John at TFA for balance to the policy wonks on the other side.

I'd think you'd find most gunowners would be against people owning guns illegally (criminals, mentally unbalanced, illegal immigrants). The problem is many in government and the media feel owning guns is illegal, or at least should be.

[Hershmeister]

Brian - I'm just using the NRA as a convenience. Any thinking person evaluating the VPC's claims will see through their misrepresentions. (as I did in my prior post) All I ask is you not serve as a parrot for their specious claims And as for violent crime, my argument would be for someone to prove their us an issue with "assault rifles" in terms of crime vs me having to prove a negative The FBI crime stats show that "rifles" are used in less than 3-5% of violent crimes (can't recall exact #). Evil AR-15s are a subset of that. So the proof is clear that ar's are not a meaningful issue when it comes to violent crime Did the sandy hook shooting shock the senses? Of course. But its a meaningless data blip in terms of statistics that would suggest that "assault weapons" are a problem in this country

[MississippiBoy]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="brianhaas" data-cid="875334" data-time="1357244305"><p>
Crime since 1995 has been on a pretty steady and gradual decline. I haven't seen any evidence the ban had any effect in either direction on that. The decline actually slowed significantly after the ban lapsed, but I suspect that's because we had already reached such low crime rates that there wasn't much more downward movement that we were going to see.</p></blockquote>

Exactly, if gun control had a statistically significant effect on crime rates it should have reversed, not slowed down. Check with a statistician but I think I am correct in that once a significant element is removed behavior returns to previous norms. Of course there are way to many factors to consider...

[MississippiBoy]

Oops double Edited January 3, 2013 by MississippiBoy

[Jonnin]

Let me just say this, Brian.

 

This is 100% what I believe.  

 

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP AN EVIL OR VIOLENTLY INSANE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ACT OF ASSAULTING INNOCENTS WITHOUT USING FORCE.

 

The problem is that most liberals simply do not belive that.  That is the fundamental issue, really.  Liberals, or the ones I know, would say that you should talk to the individual, or submit to the assault (give them what they want...blah blah), or run/hide, or call the cops (who will respond with force about 1/2 an hour after you die).   They simply do not understand that, in a hopefully rare and few cases, violence is the only answer.   A lot of liberals just do not agree that violence is a solution to any sort of problem.   And, most of the time, I agree with them, but when some idiot is shooting at 6 year olds, well, I don't agree with them any more at that point.

 

That, what I just typed, is the "honest" liberal.  The misguided person thinks talk/diplomacy/anything but violence is the answer and guns are evil as they get in the way of talking/shrinking/negotiating the criminal to death.

 

The dishonest liberal wants gun control because it is a way to punish a political enemy.   There is a LOT of this right now and it includes most of the politicians and most of the anti-gun organized movements.  

[JAB]

Let me just say this, Brian.

 

This is 100% what I believe.  

 

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP AN EVIL OR VIOLENTLY INSANE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ACT OF ASSAULTING INNOCENTS WITHOUT USING FORCE.

 

The problem is that most liberals simply do not belive that.  That is the fundamental issue, really.  Liberals, or the ones I know, would say that you should talk to the individual, or submit to the assault (give them what they want...blah blah), or run/hide, or call the cops (who will respond with force about 1/2 an hour after you die).   They simply do not understand that, in a hopefully rare and few cases, violence is the only answer.   A lot of liberals just do not agree that violence is a solution to any sort of problem.   And, most of the time, I agree with them, but when some idiot is shooting at 6 year olds, well, I don't agree with them any more at that point.

 

That, what I just typed, is the "honest" liberal.  The misguided person thinks talk/diplomacy/anything but violence is the answer and guns are evil as they get in the way of talking/shrinking/negotiating the criminal to death.

 

The dishonest liberal wants gun control because it is a way to punish a political enemy.   There is a LOT of this right now and it includes most of the politicians and most of the anti-gun organized movements.  

 

For the record I don't even own an AR 15, although I believe that people who want them should be able to own them.  Also, I realize this is drifting away from the topic a bit.  However, there is an inconsistency in the anti-gun mindset that I just must point out (there are more than one but this one is apropos to the high-cap mag argument):

 

One of the arguments that I have seen in favor of limiting magazine capacity is that if the shooter has to interrupt his shooting spree to reload more often it could give someone the chance to tackle him while he is reloading.  This despite the fact that someone who is even remotely familiar with the weapon can drop the empty mag and insert a new one in just a couple of seconds.  However, many of those same folks would argue that an armed citizen would, in most cases, have no ability or opportunity to use a legally carried firearm to stop such an incident.

 

So, apparently these folks believe it is more likely that a completely unprepared bystander will suddenly develop super powers such as supernatural speed and agility to be able to rush, tackle and take down a deranged shooter in less than three seconds than that an armed individual who has practiced with his firearm could shoot the SOB from a few yards away.  That honestly makes no sense, whatsoever.

 

Yes, I remember that the shooter at the Unitarian Church a few years back was stopped when bystanders tackled/piled on him when his gun ran dry.  However, IIRC he was using a tube-fed shotgun, not a magazine fed firearm that could be reloaded almost instantly even if the mag held only ten rounds.

Edited January 3, 2013 by JAB

[Hershmeister]

Brian - it just occurred to me that you places the NRA on the same footing as the vpc. That's not reasonable - the VPC is a small group funded by George Soroa and the NRA is a 4 million + member organization which supports safe responsible firearms ownership. These two "sides" are no where close, and that's the problem with the two sides type of reporting. Just imagine an article which discussed the nra'a position and support of gun safety education and such. Most people might be shocked to learn this. But it's always got I be the story of thenNRA wants everyone to own rocket launchers and the Vpc or maig wants to find a "reasonable" compromise. And it's just a dishonest argument.

[thundersnow]

Brain,
Your focus on an object might make for some interesting photos.
However, your focus should be on the problem - - - Mentally Deranged Evil People who use an object to kill.
An Example......
MADD went after the problem (drunk driving), not the object (vehicles). They changed how we look at "having a few" and then getting behind the wheel.
They are not called MAIV (Mother's Against Illegal Vehicles) for a reason - - - vehicles didn't cause the problem, it was the action of drunks that needed a solution.
I would suggest that finding a solution to Mentally Deranged Evil People walking freely among us would be a better focus of your work.

This is a great analogy !
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[QuietDan]

For Brian Haas:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

 

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357274447&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

 

and also:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bias-Against-Guns-Everything/dp/0895261146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357293252&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bias+against+guns

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns

 

 

Check the footnotes and research.

Edited January 4, 2013 by QuietDan

[Smith]

This is all pointless. The premise is false "Why would people like such a deadly weapon as used in a shooting of school children?". This is sensationalism. Brian has already stated that he doesn't intend to give any decisive information, only to reassemble opinions of people and organizations that are already established. I'm not sure why I'd want to read a story that doesn't present anything new. Who is the target audience? My only guess is to sell a story that does little more than to continue to emotionalize two groups that are already charged. I believe we are trending back towards Yellow journalism.

 

Brian, I think you are a good guy with good intentions and that you have no hidden agenda. I also don't think this is your intention, but intended or not it is what it is.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Smith

[Guest brianhaas]

This is all pointless. The premise is false "Why would people like such a deadly weapon as used in a shooting of school children?". This is sensationalism. Brian has already stated that he doesn't intend to give any decisive information, only to reassemble opinions of people and organizations that are already established. I'm not sure why I'd want to read a story that doesn't present anything new. Who is the target audience? My only guess is to sell a story that does little more than to continue to emotionalize two groups that are already charged. I believe we are trending back towards Yellow journalism.

 

Brian, I think you are a good guy with good intentions and that you have no hidden agenda. I also don't think this is your intention, but intended or not it is what it is.

 

Weak.

 

My story hasn't even come out yet and you're calling it "sensationalism" and "yellow journalism." Why? Because apparently I'm not cheerleading enough in favor of the AR-15?

 

I don't know how many times I have to say it: That is not my job.

 

I'm not going to get into a pointless statistics war on the benefits or drawbacks of firearms in this society. That's WAY beyond the scope of this story. Hell, I showed you guys the FBI stats that showed a dramatic drop in violent crime the year after the AW ban took place -- a drop that slowed dramatically when the ban expired. Should I include that?

 

Aside from the fact that I'm pretty certain the decline had nothing to do with either the ban or the expiration (It appears part of a larger downward trend), it would be pointless.

 

I will delve a little into the statistics behind the AW ban itself, which, at best, are inconclusive as to the benefits or drawbacks of the ban itself.

 

My premise is to introduce the AR-15 to people, explain why they are so popular, explain their uses and then explain also why they are feared by those on the other side.

 

Readers are going to see photos and a good video interview of one of your forum members firing the gun and explaining why he likes to shoot it. They're also going to hear (in the text) from folks who aren't fans of the AR-15 and other similar firearms. That's in addition to other sources (I love quoting Bill at East Side Gun Shop, for example, so he'll be in it) that I'll be including.

 

How on earth is that sensational? How is that somehow yellow?

[mikegideon]

You know how we are, Brian. We always overestimate the scope of your articles. One safe bet... if they ever ask you to fill the WHOLE paper with one of your articles, you know where to come for the material :)

[Guest brianhaas]

You know how we are, Brian. We always overestimate the scope of your articles. One safe bet... if they ever ask you to fill the WHOLE paper with one of your articles, you know where to come for the material :)

 

Very true :)

 

I do like writing about gun issues. And I do like coming to this forum. It's probably good for me to get a little testy once in awhile so folks know that I'm not here "on behalf of" gun owners. I'm here as someone interested in getting the best perspectives for my gun stories I can get.

 

I'm sure some of what appears in my story is going to piss folks here off. And I'm sure folks on the other side will be pissed as well for some things in my story.

 

If everyone is a little mad at me, I figure I'm doing my job on stories like these.

[Smith]

Readers are going to see photos and a good video interview of one of your forum members firing the gun and explaining why he likes to shoot it. They're also going to hear (in the text) from folks who aren't fans of the AR-15 and other similar firearms. That's in addition to other sources (I love quoting Bill at East Side Gun Shop, for example, so he'll be in it) that I'll be including.

 

How on earth is that sensational? How is that somehow yellow?

Thanks. You made my point. ;) 

[Guest brianhaas]

Thanks. You made my point. ;)

Bill explained to me how difficult it is to get an AR-15, how prices have gone dramatically up and how .223 ammo is nearly impossible to get. He also told me it's a legitimate gun for hunting (particularly coyotes) and also target shooting. He told me that people really like how modular they are and that tinkering with the guns is fun. He said he doesn't think AR-15s should be banned.

 

Sensational stuff.

[gregintenn]

If everyone is a little mad at me, I figure I'm doing my job on stories like these.

 

 

I remember back when a reporter/journalist's job was to uncover a story and write the facts. This was back when newspapers were actually making a profit. Boy, I'm showing my age!

 

What you are attempting to do sounds more like an episode of the Jerry Springer show than journalism.

Edited January 4, 2013 by gregintenn

[Guest brianhaas]

I remember back when a reporter/journalist's job was to uncover a story and write the facts. This was back when newspapers were actually making a profit. Boy, I'm showing my age!

 

First: The Tennessean makes a profit. So does its parent company. Maybe not as much as 15 years ago, but it is profitable.

 

Second: This is an explanatory story. I guarantee they were written back in the "good ole days" as well. This is not an expose or an investigative piece. Nor should it be. Here, my job is to explain what the guns are and the issues around them.

 

Here's the kicker: NOT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT AN AR-15 IS, OR CAN BE USED FOR.

 

You guys cannot assume that everyone knows these guns. A lot of folks have no clue what their uses are other than, "killing people." My job is to explain all of the gun's uses as best I can and why people like them. Then, I'll explain why other people don't like them.

 

Again, if there were a rash of drive-by paintball shootings, I would likely be doing an identical story, but instead of AR-15, I'd be writing about Spyders or Eclipses (if those are still even used). And it's a lot like a story I wrote a long time ago about the appeal of "crotch rocket" motorcycles.

 

It's a pretty standard news story, quite frankly, not some sorcery designed to befuddle the ever-impressionable masses to ban all guns or a cop-out by a cowed press "afraid to print the truth."

[Smith]

Bill explained to me how difficult it is to get an AR-15, how prices have gone dramatically up and how .223 ammo is nearly impossible to get. He also told me it's a legitimate gun for hunting (particularly coyotes) and also target shooting. He told me that people really like how modular they are and that tinkering with the guns is fun. He said he doesn't think AR-15s should be banned.

 

Sensational stuff.

Even Sharpton says some good stuff from time to time, but that is not why he is used by the media. ;) We're not that naive Brian and I'm one that likes Bill. :rofl:

[Guest brianhaas]

Even Sharpton says some good stuff from time to time, but that is not why he is used by the media. ;) We're not that naive Brian and I'm one that likes Bill. :rofl:

 

I've talked to Bill for more than one story now and he hasn't said anything remotely sensational or lobbed any rhetorical firebombs. My experience with him has been that he has represented gun owners well.

 

If he has a reputation otherwise, I'm all ears. But he has been eloquent and logical whenever he has spoken to me for a story.

[1pointofview]

Brian, I try not to get over reactive but when we see the same movie and think it will be any different of an ending then yes, there will be some septisizm. You might "write" a fair and objective article but what gets printed might be different.

[McAllyn]

When will this story hit newstands?

 

Mac

[Guest brianhaas]

Brian, I try not to get over reactive but when we see the same movie and think it will be any different of an ending then yes, there will be some septisizm. You might "write" a fair and objective article but what gets printed might be different.

 

My editors know that I would become the biggest pain in their asses if they took a story that I wrote in a balanced fashion and somehow twisted it to some agenda. Never in my 13 years in journalism has that happened and I've never heard any stories from journalists that I know of that happening to them either.

 

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before (I'm sure it has). But if it does, I'm guessing it's exceedingly rare.

[Guest brianhaas]

When will this story hit newstands?

 

Mac

Sometime over the weekend. Saturday or Sunday, I believe. But these things change, so don't hold me to that.